This is one of the more bizarre, somewhat strange things in Protestantism that has puzzled me for quite a while--even back when I was a Protestant. Why exactly do some of them use grape-juice--usually Welches--instead of wine for when they have "Communion" or "The Lord's Supper"? Nowhere does the Bible indicate that grape-juice was used instead of wine--which should kill the concept of grape-juice for them altogether since they adhere to Sola Scriptura--yet many of them adhere to this odd notion that Jesus gave them unfermented grape juice. That actually would have been impossible because wine starts fermenting the moment the skin is broken on the grapes--the practice of stopping fermentation to get modern grape-juice like we have now wasn't discovered until the 19th-20th century when Welch's discovered it. Plus, the whole total temperence thing in Protestantism is frightening because it seems like another similarity they have with Islam--which probably influenced them in one way or another.

This is one of the more bizarre, somewhat strange things in Protestantism that has puzzled me for quite a while--even back when I was a Protestant. Why exactly do some of them use grape-juice--usually Welches--instead of wine for when they have "Communion" or "The Lord's Supper"? Nowhere does the Bible indicate that grape-juice was used instead of wine--which should kill the concept of grape-juice for them altogether since they adhere to Sola Scriptura--yet many of them adhere to this odd notion that Jesus gave them unfermented grape juice. That actually would have been impossible because wine starts fermenting the moment the skin is broken on the grapes--the practice of stopping fermentation to get modern grape-juice like we have now wasn't discovered until the 19th-20th century when Welch's discovered it. Plus, the whole total temperence thing in Protestantism is frightening because it seems like another similarity they have with Islam--which probably influenced them in one way or another.

You have any evidence to prove the Protestant-Islam connection, or is this just another episode of your incessant Protestant-bashing?

Well, in this case, you seem to be using "some Protestants" as a less than precise term for "Evangelicals."

What you have to understand about evangelicalism is that it is a natively American religion, which lends it a distinctly American cultural character; hence the almost messianic attachment to this country as a "city upon a hill" and their zeal for the supposed sanctity of the Founding Fathers and the "Christian principles" upon which they founded "the greatest nation in the history of the earth" blah blah blah...

All of that is by way of introduction, because one key cultural trait of Americans, perhaps a defining one, is an ignorance of cultures other than their own and history from more than about fifty to a hundred years ago that is matched only by their apathy toward those topics.

In short, I strongly suspect the majority of evangelicals simply have no idea that "grape juice" as we know it today didn't exist when Christ walked the earth.

Besides all which, Americans are also possessed of a remarkable chronological snobbery. I wouldn't be surprised to hear an evangelical say that "Jesus may have drunk alcohol, but now that we have pasteurization, we don't have to do that any more." Basically, Jesus worked with what He had and we can improve on the matter He chose for the sacrament.

It's goofy, but hey, when you try to reshape a two-thousand-year-old religion in the image of a two-hundred-year-old country as perceived by a people whose knowledge of history farther back than fifty years fades into a vague vision of "the olden days," it's going to end up goofy.

Please disagree with us, but please do not do so in a mocking tone. It is not the Lord's Kiddie Table, it is reverently remembering the Lord's death for our sins, until he comes.

Some churches use "crackers", as you put is, because they believe that the Passover meal was celebrated with unleavened bread.

The shift to some beverage other than wine arose (as far as I know) out of the 19th century so-called "Temperance" movement, which mutated into a total-abstinence movement. It has been called an "American heresy". Here in Britain it first caught on most strongly among the Primitive Methodists and gradually spread to other Evangelical bodies, but not to those within the Church of England.

As an earlier post says, it goes beyond sola scriptura and dominical history, and suggests that many who profess to believe in sola scriptura in fact do not do so at all, but have that doctrine embedded within their own tradition, just as Orthodox do - except that many of those Evangelicals pretend it is not so. Non-alcoholic communion beverages are not the only example of this.

I was talking some while ago with a convert from a Moslem background, who said that the moment when he felt he had truly broken with Islam and become a Christian was when he had his first drink of beer. The earlier post is correct in pointing out that Islam is a teetotal religion, whereas the religion of the OT and the NT is not.

However, in re sola scriptura in all this - although I believe the wine should be wine and not some alternative symbol, nonetheless I am also aware that the scriptures do not say it must be wine, but refer to "the fruit of the vine" and the "cup", so there is not really an explicit contradiction here.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 07:31:15 AM by David Young »

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

However, in re sola scriptura in all this - although I believe the wine should be wine and not some alternative symbol, nonetheless I am also aware that the scriptures do not say it must be wine, but refer to "the fruit of the vine" and the "cup", so there is not really an explicit contradiction here.

'cept that there was no way the ancients could have kept grape juice in warm climates like they have in Israel. The grape juice starts fermenting within no-time.

This is one of the more bizarre, somewhat strange things in Protestantism that has puzzled me for quite a while--even back when I was a Protestant. Why exactly do some of them use grape-juice--usually Welches--instead of wine for when they have "Communion" or "The Lord's Supper"? Nowhere does the Bible indicate that grape-juice was used instead of wine--which should kill the concept of grape-juice for them altogether since they adhere to Sola Scriptura--yet many of them adhere to this odd notion that Jesus gave them unfermented grape juice. That actually would have been impossible because wine starts fermenting the moment the skin is broken on the grapes--the practice of stopping fermentation to get modern grape-juice like we have now wasn't discovered until the 19th-20th century when Welch's discovered it. Plus, the whole total temperence thing in Protestantism is frightening because it seems like another similarity they have with Islam--which probably influenced them in one way or another.

A Good question.A number of protestant church in Hong Kong use Lucozade instead of wine in holy communion

Temperance movements are not found only in some groups with a Protestant background and there is nothing related to Islam about it. The over consumption of alcoholic beverages can be part of severe social problems for some people. Examples of people/groups who advocate(d) either reduced or total abstinence from alcohol can be found in many places such as

Sri Lanka with was from Buddhist roots http://www.sundaytimes.lk/101003/Editorial.html

And I've read references to one in Australia during WWI which had early closing of taverns as part of wartime austerity, which sounds political/economic to me.

But many of these were started because of the serious social problems and misery that occurred with people, particularly the poor and the working classes, were consuming lots of cheap alcohol such as gin in England starting in the late 17th century. We're not talking about a glass of wine with a meal, one beer with a friend or sherry in the afternoon, but heavy consumption with results of disease, abuse, violence, crime and misery. Here's a starting bit on the "Gin Craze" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin_CrazeAlso, as with many cases of selling distilled beverages, let's just say that purity of product could be compromised with substances that could be pretty bad, so along with being drunk there were dangers of being poisoned.

Dr. Thomas Bramwell Welch, a dentist and a Methodist, did come up with a way of pasteurizing grape juice so that they could have the Lord's Supper without intoxicating beverages.

So things are more complicated than the OP might indicate.

Ebor

« Last Edit: January 01, 2013, 10:44:02 AM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

A Good question.A number of protestant church in Hong Kong use Lucozade instead of wine in holy communion

Talk about something that can actively harm consumers!

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

Please disagree with us, but please do not do so in a mocking tone. It is not the Lord's Kiddie Table,

It is kind of hard to take protestants seriously on this issue. I was told by more than one Protestant minister from anti drinking churches that the wine (specifically water to wine) wasn't really wine. It was really something else with no alcohol in it. Just a mistranslation or something like that. I'm sure you can find the concept online easily.

Early in America alcoholic drink was approved of by most protestant churches. It was produced by many of the parishoners(it was more profitable than just selling the corn as is). As shipping and production measures made alcohol more available and abundant so did the rise of alcoholism. As this destroyed many a family the temperance (moderation) movements began and the residue of their influence is what still lives on in the protestant church today.

Some churches use "crackers", as you put is, because they believe that the Passover meal was celebrated with unleavened bread.

There really is no need for the quotation marks around "crackers" in this context (unless you're pointing out an Americanization- I realize you blokes in the UK have never quite gotten used to our abuse of the word "biscuit" and refusal to use words like "lorry"). Many American Evangelical churches do use unsalted crackers in place of bread. Not matzah nor unleavened bread baked specifically for Communion but actual, honest-to-goodness soda crackers.

Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are." TH White

Please disagree with us, but please do not do so in a mocking tone. It is not the Lord's Kiddie Table,

It is kind of hard to take protestants seriously on this issue. I was told by more than one Protestant minister from anti drinking churches that the wine (specifically water to wine) wasn't really wine. It was really something else with no alcohol in it. Just a mistranslation or something like that. I'm sure you can find the concept online easily.

Please disagree with us, but please do not do so in a mocking tone. It is not the Lord's Kiddie Table,

It is kind of hard to take protestants seriously on this issue. I was told by more than one Protestant minister from anti drinking churches that the wine (specifically water to wine) wasn't really wine. It was really something else with no alcohol in it. Just a mistranslation or something like that. I'm sure you can find the concept online easily.

Early in America alcoholic drink was approved of by most protestant churches. It was produced by many of the parishoners(it was more profitable than just selling the corn as is). As shipping and production measures made alcohol more available and abundant so did the rise of alcoholism. As this destroyed many a family the temperance (moderation) movements began and the residue of their influence is what still lives on in the protestant church today.

This Chuck Northrop seems to have a lot of vinegar in his blood against the consumption of wine.

This is one of the more bizarre, somewhat strange things in Protestantism that has puzzled me for quite a while--even back when I was a Protestant. Why exactly do some of them use grape-juice--usually Welches--instead of wine for when they have "Communion" or "The Lord's Supper"? Nowhere does the Bible indicate that grape-juice was used instead of wine--which should kill the concept of grape-juice for them altogether since they adhere to Sola Scriptura--yet many of them adhere to this odd notion that Jesus gave them unfermented grape juice. That actually would have been impossible because wine starts fermenting the moment the skin is broken on the grapes--the practice of stopping fermentation to get modern grape-juice like we have now wasn't discovered until the 19th-20th century when Welch's discovered it. Plus, the whole total temperence thing in Protestantism is frightening because it seems like another similarity they have with Islam--which probably influenced them in one way or another.

You already answered your question, you just didn't know it. Look into the history of the founder of Welch grape juice. Check out his religious back-ground.

The Temperance movement of the 19th century is the reason why the more fundamentalist protestants don't use real wine. The more older protestant groups like your Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Lutherans use wine. I can't really say for the Methodists. Some may while others may not. Some Baptists use real wine, but most seem to only want to use grape juice.

But yeah, you will see a change among several protestant groups in the 19th century in this regard. If you ever read the book "In His Steps", then you will know why many went in this direction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_His_Steps (in his steps)

Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

This is one of the more bizarre, somewhat strange things in Protestantism that has puzzled me for quite a while--even back when I was a Protestant. Why exactly do some of them use grape-juice--usually Welches--instead of wine for when they have "Communion" or "The Lord's Supper"? Nowhere does the Bible indicate that grape-juice was used instead of wine--which should kill the concept of grape-juice for them altogether since they adhere to Sola Scriptura--yet many of them adhere to this odd notion that Jesus gave them unfermented grape juice. That actually would have been impossible because wine starts fermenting the moment the skin is broken on the grapes--the practice of stopping fermentation to get modern grape-juice like we have now wasn't discovered until the 19th-20th century when Welch's discovered it. Plus, the whole total temperence thing in Protestantism is frightening because it seems like another similarity they have with Islam--which probably influenced them in one way or another.

You already answered your question, you just didn't know it. Look into the history of the founder of Welch grape juice. Check out his religious back-ground.

The Temperance movement of the 19th century is the reason why the more fundamentalist protestants don't use real wine. The more older protestant groups like your Presbyterians, Anglicans, and Lutherans use wine. I can't really say for the Methodists. Some may while others may not. Some Baptists use real wine, but most seem to only want to use grape juice.

But yeah, you will see a change among several protestant groups in the 19th century in this regard. If you ever read the book "In His Steps", then you will know why many went in this direction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_His_Steps (in his steps)

Some snake-handling Pentecostals use both wine and grape juice; you get to pick which one you want to consume.

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Early in America alcoholic drink was approved of by most protestant churches. It was produced by many of the parishoners(it was more profitable than just selling the corn as is). As shipping and production measures made alcohol more available and abundant so did the rise of alcoholism. As this destroyed many a family the temperance (moderation) movements began and the residue of their influence is what still lives on in the protestant church today.

Historically with water in many places not being safe to drink it was common for some form of processing such as the making of small beer or ale to be done to have something safer to drink. For example records of a breakfast of bread and ale didn't indicate alcoholism and it was something that all ages drank. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/food_and_drink_in_medieval_engla.htm

It was with the development of distillation that strong alcoholic beverages became common and with the ready availability (as you have noted) serious social problems grew. In some ways the consumption of whiskey or gin by the poor and lower classes could be seen as a sort of "self-medication" from daily misery, but with with dreadful consequences for individuals and families.

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

I was told by more than one Protestant minister from anti drinking churches that the wine (specifically water to wine) wasn't really wine. It was really something else with no alcohol in it.

I heard that back in the 1960s in my Methodist past. For the particular man who said it (and of course believed it), his view of wine was more important to him than his view of scripture. A far cry from John Wesley!

Quote

the temperance (moderation) movements began and the residue of their influence is what still lives on in the protestant church today.

And, of course, temperance means moderation, and is laid upon us all, in both food and drink. And there is no reason why an individual should not voluntarily decide on a personal practice of total abstinence, as a decision taken before the Lord. What is wrong and unbiblical is imposing something on all believers which has no place in scripture and is a 19th century innovation. If we are going to make additions to scripture compulsory, we might as well become Orthodox.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

I was told by more than one Protestant minister from anti drinking churches that the wine (specifically water to wine) wasn't really wine. It was really something else with no alcohol in it.

I heard that back in the 1960s in my Methodist past. For the particular man who said it (and of course believed it), his view of wine was more important to him than his view of scripture. A far cry from John Wesley!

Quote

the temperance (moderation) movements began and the residue of their influence is what still lives on in the protestant church today.

And, of course, temperance means moderation, and is laid upon us all, in both food and drink. And there is no reason why an individual should not voluntarily decide on a personal practice of total abstinence, as a decision taken before the Lord. What is wrong and unbiblical is imposing something on all believers which has no place in scripture and is a 19th century innovation. If we are going to make additions to scripture compulsory, we might as well become Orthodox.

Apparently you've had little to do with the WCTU which had some very forceful members in the Free Methodist Church where I was raised.

Back in those days, I once heard it explained that the miracle of turning the water into wine (BTW, it's not called "miracle" in Scripture, but "sign") was simply that Jesus asked for water to be put into jars that because they were porous, still had wine in them and this refill resulted in a less strong (i.e. minimal to zero alcohol content) and therefore more palatable wine. It's really amazing that some people will deny the clear words of Scripture in order to justify their own point.

Well, in this case, you seem to be using "some Protestants" as a less than precise term for "Evangelicals."

What you have to understand about evangelicalism is that it is a natively American religion, which lends it a distinctly American cultural character; hence the almost messianic attachment to this country as a "city upon a hill" and their zeal for the supposed sanctity of the Founding Fathers and the "Christian principles" upon which they founded "the greatest nation in the history of the earth" blah blah blah...

All of that is by way of introduction, because one key cultural trait of Americans, perhaps a defining one, is an ignorance of cultures other than their own and history from more than about fifty to a hundred years ago that is matched only by their apathy toward those topics.

In short, I strongly suspect the majority of evangelicals simply have no idea that "grape juice" as we know it today didn't exist when Christ walked the earth.

Besides all which, Americans are also possessed of a remarkable chronological snobbery. I wouldn't be surprised to hear an evangelical say that "Jesus may have drunk alcohol, but now that we have pasteurization, we don't have to do that any more." Basically, Jesus worked with what He had and we can improve on the matter He chose for the sacrament.

It's goofy, but hey, when you try to reshape a two-thousand-year-old religion in the image of a two-hundred-year-old country as perceived by a people whose knowledge of history farther back than fifty years fades into a vague vision of "the olden days," it's going to end up goofy.

Yes there are many Evangelicals today that confuse Kosher Wine(yayin mevushal) with grape juice. They don't realize that Kosher wine is still WINE!!! and not grape PASTE as I have heard one evangelical pastor promote,in which the Jews simply added water to makeinstant grape juice,pretty funny really.

Well, in this case, you seem to be using "some Protestants" as a less than precise term for "Evangelicals."

What you have to understand about evangelicalism is that it is a natively American religion, which lends it a distinctly American cultural character; hence the almost messianic attachment to this country as a "city upon a hill" and their zeal for the supposed sanctity of the Founding Fathers and the "Christian principles" upon which they founded "the greatest nation in the history of the earth" blah blah blah...

All of that is by way of introduction, because one key cultural trait of Americans, perhaps a defining one, is an ignorance of cultures other than their own and history from more than about fifty to a hundred years ago that is matched only by their apathy toward those topics.

In short, I strongly suspect the majority of evangelicals simply have no idea that "grape juice" as we know it today didn't exist when Christ walked the earth.

Besides all which, Americans are also possessed of a remarkable chronological snobbery. I wouldn't be surprised to hear an evangelical say that "Jesus may have drunk alcohol, but now that we have pasteurization, we don't have to do that any more." Basically, Jesus worked with what He had and we can improve on the matter He chose for the sacrament.

It's goofy, but hey, when you try to reshape a two-thousand-year-old religion in the image of a two-hundred-year-old country as perceived by a people whose knowledge of history farther back than fifty years fades into a vague vision of "the olden days," it's going to end up goofy.

Yes there are many Evangelicals today that confuse Kosher Wine(yayin mevushal) with grape juice. They don't realize that Kosher wine is still WINE!!! and not grape PASTE as I have heard one evangelical pastor promote,in which the Jews simply added water to makeinstant grape juice,pretty funny really.

I have heard this as well. If it is not true, where did they get this information? Surely there is some truth behind it or they would not use this explaination.

Well, in this case, you seem to be using "some Protestants" as a less than precise term for "Evangelicals."

What you have to understand about evangelicalism is that it is a natively American religion, which lends it a distinctly American cultural character; hence the almost messianic attachment to this country as a "city upon a hill" and their zeal for the supposed sanctity of the Founding Fathers and the "Christian principles" upon which they founded "the greatest nation in the history of the earth" blah blah blah...

All of that is by way of introduction, because one key cultural trait of Americans, perhaps a defining one, is an ignorance of cultures other than their own and history from more than about fifty to a hundred years ago that is matched only by their apathy toward those topics.

In short, I strongly suspect the majority of evangelicals simply have no idea that "grape juice" as we know it today didn't exist when Christ walked the earth.

Besides all which, Americans are also possessed of a remarkable chronological snobbery. I wouldn't be surprised to hear an evangelical say that "Jesus may have drunk alcohol, but now that we have pasteurization, we don't have to do that any more." Basically, Jesus worked with what He had and we can improve on the matter He chose for the sacrament.

It's goofy, but hey, when you try to reshape a two-thousand-year-old religion in the image of a two-hundred-year-old country as perceived by a people whose knowledge of history farther back than fifty years fades into a vague vision of "the olden days," it's going to end up goofy.

Yes there are many Evangelicals today that confuse Kosher Wine(yayin mevushal) with grape juice. They don't realize that Kosher wine is still WINE!!! and not grape PASTE as I have heard one evangelical pastor promote,in which the Jews simply added water to makeinstant grape juice,pretty funny really.

I have heard this as well. If it is not true, where did they get this information? Surely there is some truth behind it or they would not use this explaination.

I'm not sure where they get the imformation, Even if one where a Nazarite,one would also have abstain from grape products all togther! But the process of making Kosher Wine simply boils away impurities in the juice from the crushed grapes,not to cook it down to a paste, but then again how many evangelicals know the process of wine making. I don't know all there is to know in wine making,but I've studied enough to know the basics.

While there are some denominations that are teetotalers, many Protestant congregations that use grape juice due so based on a local decision within their church and would not condemn a different church from using wine. Also, remember, that Protestants think of and approach Communion quite differently from Orthodox and it shouldn't be surprising that they have use all sorts of different types of bread and all sorts of different grape juice.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

While I agree that temperance does not necessarily mean abstinence, in some cases such as a habitual alcoholic certainly does. Alcohol to an alcoholic is a horrid sin that brings down individuals, families, and ultimately much more than that. I understand that a single sip of wine for a recovering alcoholic can send them right back into darkness. There are those that are seeking God that are best served not to drink and I have to wonder if that is more important than whether it is wine or grape juice? Why put the temptation in their face when it could result in their backsliding? IDK

I realize I do not have a full understanding perhaps of the Orthodox view of communion. Perhaps my statement stands in contradiction to it?

Peace & Grace

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

I understand that a single sip of wine for a recovering alcoholic can send them right back into darkness.

You might understand that sentence but a reality it ain't.

Oh, I'm not sure about that one Orthonorm. I am not an alcoholic so how can I say for certain? There are those very close to me that are. I would have to lean toward one drink can most certainly trigger a relapse. Now, whether that is a biological or psychological thing I won't speculate, but in the end does that even matter. If they can't have a drink without risking relapse then they can't have a drink!

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

So, what's the difference between "fermented wine" and "unfermented wine" in the Bible, then?

Check a concordance with the Hebrew and Greek words used for wine. There is certainly a greater "precision" in the Hebrew, can't say much for the Greek (Septuagintz), as I looked at this in light of the primarily silly Protestant notion about "wine" not really being "wine".

I understand that a single sip of wine for a recovering alcoholic can send them right back into darkness.

You might understand that sentence but a reality it ain't.

Oh, I'm not sure about that one Orthonorm. I am not an alcoholic so how can I say for certain? There are those very close to me that are. I would have to lean toward one drink can most certainly trigger a relapse. Now, whether that is a biological or psychological thing I won't speculate, but in the end does that even matter. If they can't have a drink without risking relapse then they can't have a drink!

This is pop-psych-addicition-studies-recovery gibberish.

I do know. You can test this out on your friends. Cook or bake something with alcohol. Let them eat it. See if they go on a bender from that "drop" they consumed.

"Alcoholism" and "alcoholic" are basically a trademarks anymore of AA. What a single drink ain't going to do is make you psychological nor physically dependent nor ruin your life nor send you off on a bender. Now telling yourself this over and over and having others tell you it as well . . . it does offer a great reason not to stop once you decide to have that "one drink" (which you have already decided is going to be a lot more than one) not to stop.

I'm about as bad a drunk as you're gonna find. A drop of wine ain't gonna do nothing, unless I've decided it will. There are no "triggers". None. This is nonsense. After you are relatively sober, drinking after that is a decision accompanied by a lot of gross motor movements over which you have nearly absolute control. You might be miserable. But you ain't gotta drink.

Again, after a reasonable degree of sobriety does such behavior enter the locus of reasonable control.

The Greek word oinos dates from at least as far back as Homer's time, is used throughout the OT and NT, and is retained in modern Greek as a prefix in words like oinologhos (wine scientist), oinopoleion (shop that sells wine), etc. Oinos has also found its way into other languages, such as the word enoteca (shop that sells wine).

The meaning of oinos has not changed one iota over the millennia. It meant, and still means, wine, fermented grape juice, without question. There is no wiggle room on this, despite what some well-meaning but misguided protestants try to say.

The Greek word oinos dates from at least as far back as Homer's time, is used throughout the OT and NT, and is retained in modern Greek as a prefix in words like oinologhos (wine scientist), oinopoleion (shop that sells wine), etc. Oinos has also found its way into other languages, such as the word enoteca (shop that sells wine).

The meaning of oinos has not changed one iota over the millennia. It meant, and still means, wine, fermented grape juice, without question. There is no wiggle room on this, despite what some well-meaning but misguided protestants try to say.

I wasn't sure if the Greek within the Septuagintz is as refined about the sorta wine being referred to as in the Hebrew.

I understand that a single sip of wine for a recovering alcoholic can send them right back into darkness.

You might understand that sentence but a reality it ain't.

Oh, I'm not sure about that one Orthonorm. I am not an alcoholic so how can I say for certain? There are those very close to me that are. I would have to lean toward one drink can most certainly trigger a relapse. Now, whether that is a biological or psychological thing I won't speculate, but in the end does that even matter. If they can't have a drink without risking relapse then they can't have a drink!

This is pop-psych-addicition-studies-recovery gibberish.

I do know. You can test this out on your friends. Cook or bake something with alcohol. Let them eat it. See if they go on a bender from that "drop" they consumed.

O.K. Not sure I agree but again how can I say for certain. I get your point and respect it. I don't think I'm going to try the experiment though!! lol

Logged

There are heathens that live with more virtue than I. The devil himself believes Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Neither of these things truly makes me Christian.

It has been traditional for churches to use, not unfermented grape juice, but de-alcoholised wine (i.e. it was wine, but they got rid of the alcohol). In my experience, grape juice is a more recent idea. We use grape juice at our church and I go along with that because, although I think the early church used wine and that some of the symbolism is lost with grape juice, the scripture only specifies 'fruit of the vine'. I have been to a couple of Anglican churches when away on holiday, where a choice was offered. Anglicans go to the front for communion, and those with medical or conscientiouis reasons for wanting non-alcohol were directed to the appropriate line. I thought that was good. In that case I joined the main, real-wine line.

I have had communion with elderberry wine, and though I know you good folk think our sacrament doesn't work anyway (no priests etc), can you think of any reason not to use elderberry, in a country where grapes do not grow but elder is abundant? It is a deep red, and an excellent accompaniment to a real meal, as the early communion services were.

Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

It has been traditional for churches to use, not unfermented grape juice, but de-alcoholised wine (i.e. it was wine, but they got rid of the alcohol).

A friend of mine has recently bought one. He won't repeat that mistake.

Quote

I have had communion with elderberry wine, and though I know you good folk think our sacrament doesn't work anyway (no priests etc), can you think of any reason not to use elderberry, in a country where grapes do not grow but elder is abundant? It is a deep red, and an excellent accompaniment to a real meal, as the early communion services were.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

I am definitely on that page, however I have also endured being raised in a family where addiction was and is prevalent. The devil can, and will, use even just a sip of wine to throw an addict off the Divine Ascent toward God.

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

I am definitely on that page, however I have also endured being raised in a family where addiction was and is prevalent. The devil can, and will, use even just a sip of wine to throw an addict off the Divine Ascent toward God.

Bolded the pertinent bit.

The devil has no power whatsoever over the Blood of Christ. Partaking of it frequently is the surest way to keep the enemy away.

« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 06:46:32 PM by Arachne »

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

I am definitely on that page, however I have also endured being raised in a family where addiction was and is prevalent. The devil can, and will, use even just a sip of wine to throw an addict off the Divine Ascent toward God.

Bolded the pertinent bit.

The devil has no power whatsoever over the Blood of Christ. Partaking of it frequently is the surest way to keep the enemy away.

Not on the Blood of Christ but on us. He can surely deceive us to take it as wine.

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

You mean, it doesn't have the physical and chemical properties of wine any more?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

You mean, it doesn't have the physical and chemical properties of wine any more?

You'll have to ask a chemist to analyse it. But, properties or not, I very much doubt it would have the normal effects of wine. Unless you have seen many priests merrymaking after consuming a nearly-full chalice after Liturgy. (I haven't, so I'm curious whether anyone has.)

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

You mean, it doesn't have the physical and chemical properties of wine any more?

You'll have to ask a chemist to analyse it. But, properties or not, I very much doubt it would have the normal effects of wine. Unless you have seen many priests merrymaking after consuming a nearly-full chalice after Liturgy. (I haven't, so I'm curious whether anyone has.)

My priest has admitted to feeling light-headed on some occasions. Sometimes he overestimates the amount of wine needed. A "merrymaker" he is not .

That said, it is my understanding that the wine and bread are still wine and bread and at the same time the Body and Blood of Christ. It's not either...or....

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

You mean, it doesn't have the physical and chemical properties of wine any more?

You'll have to ask a chemist to analyse it. But, properties or not, I very much doubt it would have the normal effects of wine. Unless you have seen many priests merrymaking after consuming a nearly-full chalice after Liturgy. (I haven't, so I'm curious whether anyone has.)

My priest has admitted to feeling light-headed on some occasions. Sometimes he overestimates the amount of wine needed. A "merrymaker" he is not .

That said, it is my understanding that the wine and bread are still wine and bread and at the same time the Body and Blood of Christ. It's not either...or....

No, it isn't either/or. Still, I'm having a hard time even imagining that the Blood of Christ, in whatever guise, would cause anyone any harm.

I know of several recovering alcoholics, staunch Catholics (including one celebrity, comedian Frank Skinner), who, far from avoiding Communion, make of it a weapon in their struggle. Even if one argues that RC sacraments are graceless, that attitude is telling.

As choy mentioned earlier, if we stay away from the Eucharist out of fear of alcohol, the devil has won.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

....But, properties or not, I very much doubt it would have the normal effects of wine. Unless you have seen many priests merrymaking after consuming a nearly-full chalice after Liturgy. (I haven't, so I'm curious whether anyone has.)

Do the Orthodox add water to the wine, like the Catholics do? That would certainly minimize some of the effects of the wine.

The brief rite of pouring water into the wine used for consecration is very ancient. Indeed, it is believed that Our Lord himself used wine tempered with water at the Last Supper as this was the common practice among the Jews and in Mediterranean culture in general.

Some form of this is found in practically every rite of the Church both Western and Eastern, except for a group of Armenian Monophysites.

Although the water is not essential for the validity of the sacrament, the Church holds it in great importance and it must never be omitted. The Council of Trent even went so far as to excommunicate whoever denied the need for this mixture (see Canon 9, Session XXII).

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

....But, properties or not, I very much doubt it would have the normal effects of wine. Unless you have seen many priests merrymaking after consuming a nearly-full chalice after Liturgy. (I haven't, so I'm curious whether anyone has.)

Do the Orthodox add water to the wine, like the Catholics do? That would certainly minimize some of the effects of the wine.

The brief rite of pouring water into the wine used for consecration is very ancient. Indeed, it is believed that Our Lord himself used wine tempered with water at the Last Supper as this was the common practice among the Jews and in Mediterranean culture in general.

Some form of this is found in practically every rite of the Church both Western and Eastern, except for a group of Armenian Monophysites.

Although the water is not essential for the validity of the sacrament, the Church holds it in great importance and it must never be omitted. The Council of Trent even went so far as to excommunicate whoever denied the need for this mixture (see Canon 9, Session XXII).

Yes. In memory of the 'blood and water' that came out of the spear wound.

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

You mean, it doesn't have the physical and chemical properties of wine any more?

You'll have to ask a chemist to analyse it. But, properties or not, I very much doubt it would have the normal effects of wine. Unless you have seen many priests merrymaking after consuming a nearly-full chalice after Liturgy. (I haven't, so I'm curious whether anyone has.)

My priest has admitted to feeling light-headed on some occasions. Sometimes he overestimates the amount of wine needed. A "merrymaker" he is not .

That said, it is my understanding that the wine and bread are still wine and bread and at the same time the Body and Blood of Christ. It's not either...or....

No, it isn't either/or. Still, I'm having a hard time even imagining that the Blood of Christ, in whatever guise, would cause anyone any harm.

I know of several recovering alcoholics, staunch Catholics (including one celebrity, comedian Frank Skinner), who, far from avoiding Communion, make of it a weapon in their struggle. Even if one argues that RC sacraments are graceless, that attitude is telling.

As choy mentioned earlier, if we stay away from the Eucharist out of fear of alcohol, the devil has won.

Perhaps I could add that my priest is diabetic - and he has never felt that he was necessarily affected by the alcohol. It could very well be that by the end of DL he is already feeling somewhat light-headed due to his condition, and has perhaps mistakenly attributed his lightheadedness to the alcohol rather than to the lack of proper nourishment for his body.

Like you, I hold firmly that the Eucharist will not bring harm. I don't know how you can reconcile "The bread and wine might harm me" and "This is the Body and Blood of Christ".

And it's not just fear of alcohol that keeps us away, but other fears as well that have been discussed elsewhere. Unfortunate.

I don't know how you can reconcile "The bread and wine might harm me" and "This is the Body and Blood of Christ".

Because it's not just the body and blood of Christ... it doesn't just appear to be bread and wine, but is in actual fact.

Blood trumps wine, though. Otherwise, it would be illegal to commune anyone under 21. (Or the Eucharist would be up there with peyote. *mind boggles*)

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

I am definitely on that page, however I have also endured being raised in a family where addiction was and is prevalent. The devil can, and will, use even just a sip of wine to throw an addict off the Divine Ascent toward God.

"The devil" can try whatever he wants, but it would take an act of God for a drop of alcohol to do whatever you think are describing. Then again, the devil only does what he does in virtue of God, so maybe you are right after all.

I don't know how you can reconcile "The bread and wine might harm me" and "This is the Body and Blood of Christ".

Because it's not just the body and blood of Christ... it doesn't just appear to be bread and wine, but is in actual fact.

Blood trumps wine, though. Otherwise, it would be illegal to commune anyone under 21. (Or the Eucharist would be up there with peyote. *mind boggles*)

You actually think law enforcement believes that Communion wine is the Blood of Christ or even cares that we believe it is?

No. Do they think it's alcohol, though? If yes, why not restrict it, or at least put it in a special category (a la peyote)? If not, our point stands against the nonalcoholists.

If I risk having Social Services step in if I'm seen giving my 4-year-old a sip of my beer (I kid you not), what makes Communion wine different in the eyes of the law?

« Last Edit: February 08, 2013, 09:01:03 PM by Arachne »

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

No. Do they think it's alcohol, though? If yes, why not restrict it, or at least put it in a special category (a la peyote)? If not, our point stands against the nonalcoholists.

If I risk having Social Services step in if I'm seen giving my 4-year-old a sip of my beer (I kid you not), what makes Communion wine different in the eyes of the law?

Even if it was just bread and wine, the amount of alcohol they are receiving should be comparable, if not less, than the alcohol found in some medicines.

Anyway, we've been doing this for 2000 years and we haven't killed babies yet. Also, how can Social Services be there to prove that this is taking place when they should be dismissed before the Anaphora (I know that doesn't happen anymore).

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

I am definitely on that page, however I have also endured being raised in a family where addiction was and is prevalent. The devil can, and will, use even just a sip of wine to throw an addict off the Divine Ascent toward God.

"The devil" can try whatever he wants, but it would take an act of God for a drop of alcohol to do whatever you think are describing. Then again, the devil only does what he does in virtue of God, so maybe you are right after all.

No, I've decided your post has nearly zero semantic content.

Have you lived with an addict? Do you know much about it? I have witnessed this first hand. Can you explain "but it would take an act of God for a drop of alcohol to do whatever you think are describing."

This is any easy answer. Many Protestants do not condone the consumption of alcohol.

the really really easy answer is that unfortunately there is a growing population of alcoholics and recovering alcoholics who can not drink wine at all. And, witnessing it myself, is a very sad thing which should not be mocked.

The quantity of alcohol in a spoonful of the Holy Eucharist is minute. We give it to babies. Plus, if one believes in transubstantiation, it's not really wine any more.

I am definitely on that page, however I have also endured being raised in a family where addiction was and is prevalent. The devil can, and will, use even just a sip of wine to throw an addict off the Divine Ascent toward God.

"The devil" can try whatever he wants, but it would take an act of God for a drop of alcohol to do whatever you think are describing. Then again, the devil only does what he does in virtue of God, so maybe you are right after all.

No, I've decided your post has nearly zero semantic content.

Have you lived with an addict? Do you know much about it? I have witnessed this first hand. Can you explain "but it would take an act of God for a drop of alcohol to do whatever you think are describing."

I understand that a single sip of wine for a recovering alcoholic can send them right back into darkness.

You might understand that sentence but a reality it ain't.

Oh, I'm not sure about that one Orthonorm. I am not an alcoholic so how can I say for certain? There are those very close to me that are. I would have to lean toward one drink can most certainly trigger a relapse. Now, whether that is a biological or psychological thing I won't speculate, but in the end does that even matter. If they can't have a drink without risking relapse then they can't have a drink!

It takes a bit more than a tablespoon of wine to kick off the allergic reaction that brings the craving for more. I am a recovered alcoholic with 22 years in AA and I have never once seen someone come back in the doors of AA saying "man, that communion wine sure got me this time". Most people I know in AA participate as usual.

I understand that a single sip of wine for a recovering alcoholic can send them right back into darkness.

You might understand that sentence but a reality it ain't.

Oh, I'm not sure about that one Orthonorm. I am not an alcoholic so how can I say for certain? There are those very close to me that are. I would have to lean toward one drink can most certainly trigger a relapse. Now, whether that is a biological or psychological thing I won't speculate, but in the end does that even matter. If they can't have a drink without risking relapse then they can't have a drink!

It takes a bit more than a tablespoon of wine to kick off the allergic reaction that brings the craving for more. I am a recovered alcoholic with 22 years in AA and I have never once seen someone come back in the doors of AA saying "man, that communion wine sure got me this time". Most people I know in AA participate as usual.

Congratulations on your years, but remember even the not so bright folks who started AA knew that the allergy thing was a model to make more understandable the way an alcoholic reacted to alcohol to the even less bright people they were talking to.

I don't know how you can reconcile "The bread and wine might harm me" and "This is the Body and Blood of Christ".

Because it's not just the body and blood of Christ... it doesn't just appear to be bread and wine, but is in actual fact.

My point exactly. You cannot reconcile the two. If you believe one, the other makes no sense.

I guess I don't understand your point... what does sense or being able to reconcile things logically have to do with the eucharist?

Actually you are getting my point - we really do agree. I think there's just some way in which we are talking past each other. Let me try again: If someone claims to believe that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Christ, the statement "The bread and wine might harm me" contradicts that claimed belief. To hold the two beliefs is contradictory and illogical. That being said, yes it is true that the belief that the the wine and bread are the Body and Blood of Christ is not something to be determined logically - so in that sense we still agree that logic and the Eucharist have little to do with each other.

I understand that a single sip of wine for a recovering alcoholic can send them right back into darkness.

You might understand that sentence but a reality it ain't.

Oh, I'm not sure about that one Orthonorm. I am not an alcoholic so how can I say for certain? There are those very close to me that are. I would have to lean toward one drink can most certainly trigger a relapse. Now, whether that is a biological or psychological thing I won't speculate, but in the end does that even matter. If they can't have a drink without risking relapse then they can't have a drink!

It takes a bit more than a tablespoon of wine to kick off the allergic reaction that brings the craving for more. I am a recovered alcoholic with 22 years in AA and I have never once seen someone come back in the doors of AA saying "man, that communion wine sure got me this time". Most people I know in AA participate as usual.

Congratulations on your years, but remember even the not so bright folks who started AA knew that the allergy thing was a model to make more understandable the way an alcoholic reacted to alcohol to the even less bright people they were talking to.

And thank you for saying recovered and not recovering.

Take it easy.

Um,.... nope. The disease concept predates AA by a long time. Check out Dr.Benjamin Rush. His research back in the late 1700's and early 1800's put forth that conclusion. It goes back much further than that, but he is the one that brought much of what we know about addiction together for the first time.

I understand that a single sip of wine for a recovering alcoholic can send them right back into darkness.

You might understand that sentence but a reality it ain't.

Oh, I'm not sure about that one Orthonorm. I am not an alcoholic so how can I say for certain? There are those very close to me that are. I would have to lean toward one drink can most certainly trigger a relapse. Now, whether that is a biological or psychological thing I won't speculate, but in the end does that even matter. If they can't have a drink without risking relapse then they can't have a drink!

It takes a bit more than a tablespoon of wine to kick off the allergic reaction that brings the craving for more. I am a recovered alcoholic with 22 years in AA and I have never once seen someone come back in the doors of AA saying "man, that communion wine sure got me this time". Most people I know in AA participate as usual.

Congratulations on your years, but remember even the not so bright folks who started AA knew that the allergy thing was a model to make more understandable the way an alcoholic reacted to alcohol to the even less bright people they were talking to.

And thank you for saying recovered and not recovering.

Take it easy.

Um,.... nope. The disease concept predates AA by a long time. Check out Dr.Benjamin Rush. His research back in the late 1700's and early 1800's put forth that conclusion. It goes back much further than that, but he is the one that brought much of what we know about addiction together for the first time.

Umm . . . the disease / allergy model was popular by AA (I didn't say they invented or discovered the allergy (really dumb) or disease (slightly less dumb) model of alcoholism) and then they became confused and took the model literally at least in many of the rooms I've been in.

Alcoholism ain't a disease nor an allergy. We can get into how alcoholism is understood by AA elsewhere I guess, but it primarily a incredibly imprecise phenomenological judgement made by the one claiming to be alcoholic and those who would accept or reject that person's judgement.

EDIT: To the bolded, really there is no discussion to be had. If someone confuses "addiction" with alcoholism then they likely know little about either nebulous concept in any meaningful or formal manner.